Many have wondered why abrogation of Article 370 for Jammu & Kashmir was not enough when another decision, adding insult to injury, was taken. J&K State was downgraded to a Union Territory and Ladakh became a separate Union Territory too.
This article is an attempt to understand the similarities between J&K and Manipur situation and ponder if the solution to the Manipur crisis is drifting towards downgradation to Union Territory (UT) status to remedy regional developmental disparities within Manipur, reduce corruption, empower the tribes and accelerate balanced development for all communities and areas.
On August 5, 2019, the Government of India abrogated Article 370, to fulfil an election manifesto promise of the ruling BJP party. Along with this decision the Government of India (GoI) reorganised the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories which caught everyone by surprise - Jammu & Kashmir (UT with legislature) and Ladakh (UT without legislature). Official reasons stated by the Government of India include -
1. Better Governance & Development: The government argued that Article 370 had prevented the full application of Indian laws in J&K, hindering development and governance. Union Territory status allows for direct central control through the Lieutenant Governor, which the government claimed would improve administration, reduce corruption, and accelerate development.
2. Security and Integration: The region had witnessed decades of militancy and political instability. The move was positioned as a way to integrate J&K more closely with the rest of India, both legally and symbolically.
3. Equal Rights and Opportunities: The government said it wanted to ensure equal rights for women, Dalits, tribal groups, and refugees (e.g., West Pakistan refugees), some of whom were historically disadvantaged under the state-specific laws of J&K.
4. Demand from Ladakh: Many in Ladakh had long demanded separation from J&K, arguing that their cultural and geographical concerns were neglected under the J&K government.
The reorganization granted Ladakh separate UT status, acknowledging their distinct identity.
To many, downgrading J&K State to a UT was a lesson to teach the Muslim-majority community that they need to stop sectarian politics and embrace inclusive development and governance. There is no official statement from the Government of India indicating that the move was intended to target or punish the Muslim-majority of the region, but critics and analysts (especially from Kashmir or opposition parties) argue that the unilateral removal of autonomy as a State was perceived by many as a form of political disenfranchisement, especially for the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley.
Some believe that the reorganization was intended to dilute the political dominance of the Muslim majority in the region and reshape its demographic and political structure over time.
On the other hand, supporters argue that it was necessary to ensure equal treatment for all communities, including Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Dalits, who they claim were often marginalized under the earlier state setup. So, while some may perceive it as a political message to the dominant community, that interpretation is subjective and politically charged and not officially confirmed.
There is a question now whether Jammu & Kashmir will ever regain statehood.
The government of India has stated multiple times that statehood will be restored to Jammu & Kashmir, but at an "appropriate time". Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have said that statehood is not off the table, but it will follow "normalization" — including the successful conduct of elections, reduced militancy, and improved law and order.
Key factors that may influence this are -
1. Security Situation: Ongoing insurgency or militancy can delay statehood restoration.
2. Political Climate: The central government’s confidence in a more balanced and impartial political environment; a change in the mindset of political leaders embracing inclusive development and governance.
3. Elections: Conducting free and fair assembly elections could be a step toward restoring statehood.
4. Administrative Performance: If UT governance under the oversight of the Lieutenant Governor is seen to improve standard of life and reduce corruption, promote inclusive development and governance, the GoI may delay restoration of statehood.
There is also the question whether it is the "mindset" of the dominant community for its inability to be impartial, unbiased, inclusive, just and fair towards the minority and marginalised population that may figure as an important factor to decide if the situation is right for restoring full statehood to J&K. While there is no official policy linking the mindset of the Muslim majority to the return of statehood, it’s often implied in political discourse that the central government expects a more inclusive, non-sectarian governance structure in future. The GoI may be wary of returning power to leaders or parties who are seen as sectarian by favoring one group over another. Will the appropriate time come when such mindset is diluted and losses it predominance.
It appears that the GoI decision to the reorganization of J&K was aimed at improving governance, ensuring equality, and integrating the region fully with India. It also had political and strategic goals, including reducing perceived regional bias. Although there is no official indication that it was done to punish the Muslim majority, this perception exists in some quarters. Statehood may return to J&K, but it will be tied to political stability, law and order, and the central government’s assessment of administrative fairness.
Now consider the situation in Manipur. Despite President's Rule being imposed, the absence of meaningful conversation between the warring communities (Meitei and Chin-Kuki-Zo) seems to indicate that the root causes of the conflict remain largely unaddressed and the demand for the formation of a new government seems to be at odds with the reality on the ground.
Current Situation in Manipur:
1. Political and Administrative Impasse: The demand for a new government by the MLAs is understandable from a democratic perspective. However, the fundamental problems remain unchanged — particularly the ethnic violence and lack of trust between the Meitei-majority in the valley and the tribal-majority in hill areas. The tribes (Nagas and Kukis) have been clubbed together as the primary agenda of the Meitei-majority has shifted to ownership of tribal lands in “hill areas” through various strategies; becoming ST, extension of MLR&LR Act, redrawing district boundaries, amendment of Article 371-C etc. This is a dangerous move as it has potential to ignite a wider conflict between the non-tribals and the tribes.
2. Under President's Rule, the administration is essentially being run by officials and the Governor. While this can offer a more impartial governance model in theory, the ground-level issues of ethnic tensions and territorial disputes are not easily solved by administrative intervention alone; it needs political settlement.
3. Rapprochement is Still Elusive: As of now, there's no significant rapprochement between the Meitei and Chin-Kuki-Zo tribes. The violence and mistrust between these groups continue to shape the political landscape of Manipur. The core issue — separate administration (territorial claims, autonomy demands), religious/ethnic divide, and the question of political representation — remains unresolved. Inter-community negotiations have hardly started and are not yielding substantial results, with neither side willing to make significant compromises.
4. Political Control and Bias: Even if a new state government is to be formed, power would still likely remain concentrated in the hands of the dominant Meitei community without any systemic change, which is the core of the issue. A new political leadership solves nothing. Historically, political power in Manipur has been Meitei dominated, and the concerns of tribal groups (both Kukis and Nagas) may once again be sidelined. A new government and leader will only perpetuate and accentuate existing problems and is best avoided. What is needed is a systemic change not leadership change. Systemic change should include an oversight person above the Chief Minister who can advice whether the allocation of resources, projects, infrastructure, institutions, etc between the valley and the “hill areas” have been done equitably and seek remedial reconsideration by the state government. The remedy to Manipur crisis should also include giving the “hill areas” empowered autonomous district councils under the Sixth Schedule which may mitigate their grievances substantially. Even in the formation of the council of ministers there should be oversight to ensure that the legislators from “hill areas” are given adequate number of ministership and respectable portfolios.
5. The lack of inclusive governance remains a major challenge — the perception among the tribal communities is that the Meitei political elite hold most of the levers of power in the state, which often leads to feelings of disenfranchisement of the tribes and of not belonging to the state. They fear that they will be denied the benefits of Delimitation exercise based on population data of census 2001 ordered by the Supreme Court of India as it is opposed by the dominant community. The tribes feel that they have been held captive in the state without any emotional attachment with Manipur. Systemic change is necessary to bring about real change in governance that will ensure equity in funds, infrastructure, institutions, political power sharing, local self governance for “Hill Areas”.
The parallels between J&K and Manipur is difficult to miss. The main issue in Manipur is the partial, sectarian and bias mindset of the leaders of the dominant community who can think of only one thing - to keep dominating and subjugating the tribes. Their sectarian mindset stops them from being magnanimous to share political power, pursue inclusive development and governance. The Muslims in J&K State behaved similarly when it came to dispensing inclusive governance and development by keeping everything for themselves and neglecting other communities.
The dominant Meitei community has been refusing to extend the Sixth Schedule to Hill Areas which the tribes have been demanding from mid 1970’s. After 50 years of demand the state government has tricked the tribes again by recommending Sixth Schedule to the GoI subject to certain conditionalities. The rider has effectively stalled the proposal. From the year 2022, the dominant community have started to aggressively pursue the strategy of trying to facilitate processes for grabbing tribal lands in Hill Areas. The tribes have lost trust of the dominant community and do not expect them to dispense any form of justice.
The parallels between J&K State and Manipur is uncanny. Similar to J&K, there is imbalance in regional development; unequal rights, opportunities and treatment of communities; demand for separate administration/Sixth Schedule; security/law & order situation caused by gun violence; and lack of inclusive development or governance between valley and “Hill “Areas”. Only a situation under the oversight of a LG in a UT (with legislators) will provide equitable distribution of funds, location of institutions, projects, infrastructure etc in “Hill Areas”, and remedy the ills currently faced by Manipur. The down-gradation to UT should be accompanied by grant of Sixth Schedule to the “Hill Areas” of Manipur which will give the tribes a truly workable local self government system they have been demanding for 50 years. All their counterparts in north eastern states have autonomous district councils for different tribes and similar treatment is being sought by tribes of Manipur for the “Hill Areas”. This system will help formalise and stabilise traditional practises relating to customs, land, religious matters, village councils, village courts, forests, water etc (which is being practised in all villages) and especially help insulate tribal lands in “Hill Areas” from alienation.
Just like the treatment J&K UT is witnessing now, Manipur would require a period for stabilisation and normalisation of the situation to remedy the current situation of intransigence and high handedness of the dominant community and ensure grievances of the tribes are fully addressed before statehood is restored.
This strategy needs contemplation as one of the way forward for Manipur to survive as a political entity with coexistence of all communities in a pluralistic society. The other route, which is demanded by the Chin-Kuki-Zo tribes and is avoidable, is divorce.
(Views expressed are personal and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Hills Journal)
The Hills Journal
K. Salbung, Churachandpur
Manipur-795128
